Anyone watching Bush's address?

Ok nick, you live in that dillusion - that no one's 'way of life' is/was effected by the terrorism, only by the the reactions/policies of our bad bad government.

Even if I did believe that Al Quaeda orchestrated what happened on 9/11, (which I do not) I'd still have to say that it is our foreign policy that makes us a target for terrorist attacks. I'm going to have to agree with NickFaust on the fact that 9/11 itself did not threaten the American way of life. What threatens the American way of life is when we allow our constitutional rights to be taken away so that we feel a false sense of security.

funny, when i think of "the american way" i think of things like an abundance of personal freedoms, a democratically elected government and a robust economy, not some jackass' day-to-day monotony.

2008? I can't wait that long, now that the Democrats made a "comeback" in the mid-term i'm waiting for him to get impeached!

I wish I could say that I actually believed that Bush being impeached was even a possibility, but unfortunately I just don't see it happening. Even if he were to be impeached, that's not going far enough.. What I'd like to see is for him to be held accountable for ALL his actions and the impact they have had.

I don't suppose either of you practices constitutional law?..

I wasn't really arguing it was (not that it really lists liberties either, but whatever), I was just making the joke because the examples that you gave of changes to our way of life were frankly pretty silly.

Really it's a question of degree. Did 9/11 change our way of life? Yes, clearly it did. Did it change our way of life more than our own actions afterwards in response to 9/11? No, clearly it did not.

I could probably get most of it by memory, but I confess, I looked it up to get the exact wording.

This is very, very funny!
I really like you guys, but you should get a room - or perhaps that's no longer necessary!

Very few lawyers exclusively practice Con Law.

Very few lawyers don't enjoy being armchair Constitutional Lawyers, however.

That is funny, because Oyaji just defined the preamble as "in popular parlance .... things enshrined in the US Const." So you dont agree.

Even if this government did not react in any manner, no one can convince me that our 'way of life' was not impacted by 9/11 - as fear of life and liberty being taken away by irrational behaviour on a large scale is now a reality for many rational citizens.

Sorry, this would exist with or without the freedom act.

And it has been 20 years since I took constitutional law and certainly never took the bar to prove I learned something, but I am fairly certain those are our liberties.

semantics.

But feel free to have the last word. You enjoy hearing yourself preach.

You must be a pleasure to play ping pong with.

No. It means I dont feel like sparring with you over the semantics of the english language on a chat board on a porn site.

I gave my opinion. You gave yours. I dont agree Bush's actions alone have impacted The American way of life since 9/11.

But thank you for the Constitution 101 refresh.

btw - I didnt realize these boards were about 'kicking someones ass".

sophmoric crap.

Only when you're the kickee dude. Only when you're the kickee.

As for the semantics stuff - Let's recap. You responded to my post - saying that the only threat to the American way of life was Bush - by saying that the hijackers changed the American way of life. When it was pointed out to you that all of the things that you listed in your justification of that point were the result of actions taken by the Bush Administration, not the hijackers, and that the "American way of life" is not the way we travel, but the things that make Amercia unique and special (you know secular government, the Consitution and the Bill of RIghts), you responded that it was all just semantics.

Why is it whenever someone get's caught up in the stupidity of their own words they begin to say that the the points made by others are "just semantics."

I wonder...

You might want to look into yourself for that answer, because if you are really here to win some imaginary SG debate trophy, then you clearly need to brush up on social conversation.

please tell me you're talking to yourself.

Repeat: I dont agree Bush's actions alone have impacted the American way of life since 9/11.

k, thanks for the crib notes on the preamble to the constitution.

What a putz.

Of course Bush's actions have not been the only things effectinig the American way of life. There's Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, and Gonzolez and the whole DHS, and let's not forget Tom Delay and a whole bunch of other assholes whose reaction to the terrorists has been more than the terrorists could ever have hoped for in their wildest dreams.

It has been said, but you still don't get it, that the only people who can "destroy the American way of life" is the American people. - more specifically their own elected representatives and the people they hire to run the government. That you miss this essential truth makes you part of the problem.

Try being part of the solution.

The speech, the build-up, and the threats to Iran and Syria are merely a stepping stone to Bush declaring a State of Emergency and Martial Law at which point he,Bush, will suspend the Constitution, the upcoming '08 elections and appoint himself president for life

My favorite part, other than the "Iran and Syria better watch their asses, or my name ain't 'W'" bit, was the part where I learned tht 20,000 U.S. troops are going to be utilized to give the incompetent Malaki government, "breathing room." Fantastic! It is wonderful to know that the President is helping to prop up the regime that is protecting, harboring, and encouraging Al Sadr in his efforts to kill more U.S. troops, by providing him with 20,000 bodyguards, and 20,000 more potential targets.

There's a trophy ?!?

I took the whole "areas which were previously off-limits" part of the speech to mean that Al Sadr might not receive much protection for much longer. That and we'd be doing away with our longstanding practice of not blowing up mosques.

You have to wonder about the US action in Irbil this morning. Provocation? Maybe. Provocative? Definitely. Justified? Don't know; but frankly, at this point I'm not going to believe Bush.

It might avoid alienating the tattered remnants of his domestic support if Iran could be provoked into a response. That would provide a much more "credible" (= deniable) "reason" for a State of Emergency and Martial Law.

You know I only have one person on this site under ignore; and threads like this one remind me why. I love still having the option to read his drivel though.